Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Yeah, I like it too Lon. He's one of my bald brothers and one of my favorite actors. He made that movie for me.

As far as agendas in documentaries. Agree with you on Roger. No attempt to be impartial there. I do not like him, or agree with most of what he believes, however that is not why I say that. Plenty of documentaries I like, and agree with, that I would also say are subjective. Off the top of my head, Fat Head and King Corn are two.

Then there are "documentaries" that are basically infomercials for an agenda. Two of the biggest violators I can think of are Paradise Lost 1, and especially 2. Regardless of whether you believe the West Memphis Three are guilty, you would have to admit those are far from impartial. Word has it they are making a third one, and are going after a different person they will say committed the murders.

Those documentaries spawned a bunch of other much less successful ones to show the innocence of people in prison. Well, when I say less successful, mean less known.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Oh, yeah, the Paradise Lost docs are partial as hell. However, I will credit them for interesting me in the case, which I checked out on my own. Judging by the actual evidence I would actually agree the WM3 are innocent, but not because the doc influenced me to believe so.

And I think that's the thing about documentaries. If the viewer is unable to see through the slant and look at the facts themselves, they're liable to believe anything anybody tells them.

I will tell you one very good documentary I saw a few years ago was Ice Man: Confessions of a Mafia Hit Man. I would dare say it was almost completely impartial, because it was the murderer speaking for himself. Very chilling doc, it totally creeped me out how this man had zero conscience. For him, killing people was like stepping outside to check the mail -- it was just something you do and don't think one way or the other about it. Highly recommended.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

PL got me interested in the case too, which resulted in me reading a lot about the case, and checking into the evidence too. I believe they're guilty. I actually think they are interesting documentaries and enjoyed watching them, considering the subject.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Stealing a Nation, A Special Report by John Pliger - MINDBLOWING! (that is, how cruel our supposed "civilised" western governments can be) and so ENRAGING!

Sht like this makes me to blow up the white house. IM SO ANGRY!

Oh so you have enough money to wage a illegal war against your old friend, Hussien but you cant be bothered to take the Chagos islanders back to their homeland which you stole from them. FCKIN racist scum.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Well, what convinced me of their innocence was the DNA testing. Here's the section of the court order which helped them secure another trial later this year:

"The results of the testing established that neither Echols, Baldwin, nor Misskelley wasthe source of any of the biological material tested, which included a foreign allele from apenile swab of victim Steven Branch; a hair from the ligature used to bind victim MichaelMoore; and a hair recovered from a tree stump, near where the bodies were recovered. Inaddition, the DNA material from the hair found in the ligature used to bind Moore was foundto be consistent with Terry Hobbs, Branch’s stepfather. The hair found on the tree stumpwas consistent with the DNA of David Jacoby, a friend of Terry Hobbs."

Mind you, this is the same evidence the previous court would not allow into court because they felt it didn't prove the WM3 weren't at the site. But on the same token, in no way does it prove that they were. At the most, the evidence proves that Branch's stepfather was present, as was the stepfather's friend, when the boys were killed. That's now fact.

In order to think the WM3 was guilty, it would have to be believed that they did the killing, with the stepfather and his friend present, yet committed the murders without leaving a single, solitary trace of evidence that they were there. Which is impossible, unless the WM3 managed to somehow magically hover above the ground so as not to leave footprints, were wrapped in a coccoon which secured any hair, body fluid or skin flake from falling off their persons, telekinetically manipulated the tools used to kill them so as not to leave fingerprints, and forced Branch's stepfather's saliva onto Branch's penis, while also forcing the stepfather's friend's hair to fall out, there, on the scene.

Long story short, the DNA evidence now being allowed, if it doesn't clear them completely, at the very least presents a reasonable doubt. And so long as a reasonable doubt exists, a jury cannot, by law, deliver a verdict of guilty.

Even though they did the first time.

EDIT: Whoops. The allele found on Branch's penis wasn't the stepfather's saliva. Sorry -- this time, it was classified as an unidentified "foreign" allela. Branch's stepfather's hair was also found at the murder site, however.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Lon - No you would not have to believe that. There is a lot of evidence that contradicts what you copied. I spent a lot of time reading about this case, and reading both sides. That is absolutely NOT a fact that Terry was there. It proves a hair was. That is the fact. It is not that inconceivable that a hair from one of the boys home would be at the scene.

I'm not going to get in a debate about this because it is futile. I could copy plenty of texts too, but we won't change each others minds. I've read Misskelley's confessionS. I know why you don't believe them (I've read every argument against them), and I know why I do.

Anyway...seriously, I'm done talking bout this. I shouldn't of brought it up. There are at least four forums I am aware of for this debate. Who knows, maybe they will get that new trial.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Ghostseeker wrote:

Lon - No you would not have to believe that. There is a lot of evidence that contradicts what you copied. I spent a lot of time reading about this case, and reading both sides. That is absolutely NOT a fact that Terry was there. It proves a hair was. That is the fact. It is not that inconceivable that a hair from one of the boys home would be at the scene.

I'm not going to get in a debate about this because it is futile. I could copy plenty of texts too, but we won't change each others minds. I've read Misskelley's confessionS. I know why you don't believe them (I've read every argument against them), and I know why I do.

Anyway...seriously, I'm done talking bout this. I shouldn't of brought it up. There are at least four forums I am aware of for this debate. Who knows, maybe they will get that new trial.

Whoa, whoa. I wasn't being a dick or anything (not intentionally, anyway). I certainly wasn't trying to belittle your opinion or change your mind -- I was sharing one piece of information which cemented my opinion that they're innocent. I was being a smart-ass about the telekinesis and stuff to illustrate a point, as I often do here.

No need to take umbrage. I thought we were just having a friendly discussion.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

z3r0c00l wrote:

Watched the first part of the Video Nasties: The Definitive Guide.

@Lon thanks for telling us about it. VERY informative

No problem. It is one of the more entertaining docs I've seen in a while. The obvious political agenda of certain key people just reminds me of the ridiculous lengths people of "taste" will go to to force their opinions on others.

I've always subscribed to the notion that if a movie looks too violent and grotesque, I don't have to watch it -- but I don't want that choice taken away from me by someone with no purpose in their mind other than to curry favor by milking popular opinion for their own advancement or sense of self-righteousness.

Re: Last Documentary You Watched?

Ok...I wasn't trying to be a prick. You were fine. Just seen where texts and articles about this are posted forever, and it either goes nowhere or bad. I totally respect your opinion, I just disagree with it, which is fine. It was a friendly discussion, was just saying I'm not going to get in a debate about this cuz it will be pointless. That's why I put the smiley face! Geez...don't you know what smileys are for?!?!?!!?